Thompson v. Policemen's Benevolent Labor Committee
983 N.E.2d 1060
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Sheriff Thompson sought declaratory judgment that arbitration was not required for the Merit Commission’s discharge of Dove under a 2007–2010 collective bargaining agreement.
- The 2007–10 agreement (effective Dec 1, 2007–Nov 30, 2010) governed grievance/arbitration procedures and included a renewal/continuation clause if no successor agreement was completed by expiration.
- IFOPLC represented sheriff’s department employees until Jan 2011, when a decertification vote triggered PBLC as the new bargaining representative.
- Dove was discharged by Merit Commission on Feb 21, 2011; PBLC sought binding arbitration under the then-existing agreement.
- Sheriff sought to bar arbitration arguing the agreement expired/voided; PBLC and Dove also pursued an Illinois Labor Relations Board action; trial court granted summary judgment for PBLC; appeal followed.
- Court held the 2007–10 agreement remained in full force because no successor agreement was completed by expiration, preserving arbitration duties; arbitration clause clear and applicable; stay of labor relations proceedings not warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the 2007–10 CBA require arbitration after expiration and decertification? | Thompson: no obligation after expiration/decertification. | PBLC: duty to arbitrate persists under continuation clause. | Arbitration duty remains; agreement stayed in force. |
| Does decertification void the existing arbitration rights? | Decertification terminates contractual rights. | No clear voiding of the agreement; rights survive. | Not void; agreement remains in effect. |
| Is the arbitration clause clear and broad enough to cover the merit commission decision? | Clause not clearly broad enough to compel arbitration. | Clause is clear/ambiguous in favor of arbitration; Donaldson-like presumption. | Clause is clear/unambiguous to arbitrate the merit commission decision. |
| Was a stay appropriate under the Uniform Arbitration Act? | Sheriff sought stay/enjoinment of labor board action. | Labor Board action separate; stay improper. | Stay denied; proceedings not subject to stay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Litton Financial Printing Division v. National Labor Relations Board, 501 U.S. 190 (U.S. 1991) (structural remedies may survive contract expiration; arbitration favored in unclear probems)
- John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1964) (successor employer may be bound to arbitrate under the contract)
- United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1960) (broad arbitration clauses; reasonable interpretation favors arbitration)
- Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Futures, Inc. v. Barr, 124 Ill. 2d 435 (Ill. 1988) (presumption in favor of arbitration in unclear cases; arbitrator initially decides substantive arbitrability)
- City of Rockford v. Unit Six of the Policemen’s Benevolent & Protective Ass’n, 351 Ill. App. 3d 252 (Ill. App. 2004) (inquiries into intent to exclude from arbitration guided by agreement)
- Consolidated Broadcasting Corp. v. American Arbitration Ass’n, 115 Ill. App. 3d 577 (Ill. App. 1983) (survival of remedies and dispute-resolution provisions)